FTM wrote on Jul 10, 2008 1:00 PM:You know - I never cared one way or another about that "Sunshine Power Link" or "Sunrise Power Link" proposed high power line, (or whatever the heck they call it), but after reading this I am VERY CONCERNED about the potential damage that can be done to our backcountry with exposed high tension pwer lines.

SDG&E got out of the 'generation' business and now they get paid to do one thing for us: DISTRIBUTION - well - we are not getting our money's worth because all the money we have paid them to distribute electricity will now need to be used to pay the lawsuits that are coming instead og upgrading the power lines. Maybe de-regulation is not such a good plan after all - especially now when we need a strong direction in the power and energy biz to move us away from oil. De-Regulation might still work - but so far it needs some help - like the airlines: things are falling apart.

JE wrote on Jul 10, 2008 1:11 PM:"No electrical power system can be protected 100 percent from the kind of severe weather conditions we experienced last fall." - SDG&E

To be honest, I can understand where SDG&E might be coming from here. But would you ever hear them say something like this as it pertains to the "Sunrise Power Link"?

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:33 PM:The posts from "FTM" (1:00pm) and "JE" (1:11pm) are right on target.
Sure, nothing is 100% protected from severe weather, but I've never heard of fires starting from rooftop solar photovoltaic panels.
The only reason SDG&E doesn't want to invest the money in on-site, local production is because, as FTM says, they make their money on risky transmission through fire-prone sensitive habitats. Although on-site local generation is unquestionably most efficient, the idea of losing control of distributing centrally-produced energy terrifies them.

AL GORE wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:56 PM:And I was sure this was due to "climate change."

prof wrote on Jul 10, 2008 6:55 PM:Climate change = HUGE BOONDOGGLE!

MJ wrote on Jul 10, 2008 6:58 PM:This just needs to play itself out. If SDGE followed best practices and was in compliance with rules and regulations, then this needs to be cracked up to an act of nature -- bad things just happen. On the other hand, if SDGE knew or reasonably should have known that their lines created a dangerous condition, they are toast.

Warner wrote on Jul 10, 2008 8:15 PM:I have believed from early on that SDG&E was at fault. Eighty mile an hour winds are fairly common here in the Southland. The power company has a responsibility to maintain and keep the power lines in good repair. They should stop sputtering at the mouth, accept that they are responsible for the fires, and adapt a maintenance plan that will keep the brush cut back to a very safe distance, while the mechanics of the line are kept in good repair.
This does not alter the fact that we need the Sunrise Power Line. We should stop sputtering at the mouth and make sure that the power company has all the needed maintenance activities in the plans for the link.
The state also has a lot of responsibility here. Seems to me they are inspecting the door after the horse is long gone, when they should have had their inspectors out on the job doing checks and balances prior to the fires. Inspections by the state and the power company should be on going, and maintenance should be performed before the lines deteriorate to a point where they can start a fire.
Our elected officials have a lot of responsibility here also. They are there to assure that the checks and balances are in place and on going - always and forever.
The citizens of San Diego country have suffered great loses because those people in key places have been derelict in their duties. They should be "repaired" and put under a maintenance and upkeep plan, and if that is impossible then replace them. At the very least, the chain of command that failed should be made public by this newspaper, etc.

Open Wires wrote on Jul 11, 2008 6:11 AM:Looking at the Witch Fire report, it shows pictures of the wires that caused the fire. They are exposed open metal. Why doesn't SDGE used insulated wires like we do in automobiles?

SUE SDGE wrote on Jul 11, 2008 6:39 AM:We want to pay more for power! I just luv that trickle down effect.

If this turns out wrote on Jul 11, 2008 6:42 AM:to be climate change or if they prefer global warming like everything else, who would we sue? Gore?

Howiek wrote on Jul 11, 2008 7:48 AM:Sure SUE SDGE, then watch as our electric rates climb exponentially! In the end “we” pay!

DD Wiz, do you really think SDG&E is going to hand out solar systems? Solar is expensive—VERY expensive!

Evacuee VC Fallbrook wrote on Jul 11, 2008 8:40 AM:Sunrise Powerlink has potential of even larger problems, such as these fires. SDG&E/Sempra has been less than truthful with both regulators and the public and the ratepayers about potential for fires.
They did, however, file paperwork with the SEC that they had potential liability in last year's fires.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 11, 2008 8:47 AM:The post from "Howiek" (7:48am) asks if I "really think SDG&E is going to hand out solar systems?"
No, I do not actually expect them to do the right thing. Please note, as long as public legislation and sweetheart deals on easements through sensitive habitat are being given for the benefit of private stockholders, and SDG&E is allowed (at least until AB1920 passes) to just keep without compensation excess energy produced by solar "consumer generators," yes, I do believe they should be contributing substantial incentives toward the proliferation of on-site local generation of electricity taking advantage of the FREE god-given energy poured out over sunny Southern California.
"Howiek" goes on to note: "Solar is expensive -- VERY expensive!"
Please don't lecture me about things you know nothing about. I put solar panels on my house last year and have not had a single electric bill since. We produce more than we use. Expensive? Well, sure, there is an upfront cost, which keeps decreasing and is partially offset by state and federal rebate incentives.
But we refinanced our house with a 30-year-fixed that had a lower interest rate, so we not only eliminated our electric bill, we also reduced our house payment! And if we should have to unexpectedly sell our house, we have a substantial capital improvement to add to its value.
Yes, there is an upfront cost. It is called an "investment."
It is only "expensive" to the short-sighted.

What wrote on Jul 11, 2008 8:54 AM:If they're going to sue SDGE, they should also sue every fire dept. on the scene of the fires, for failure to make every possible effort to EXTINGUISH the fires, rather than simply mopping up the scorched earth. The extent of the damage is on the shoulders of the so-called "firefighters," NOT SDGE!

prof wrote on Jul 11, 2008 9:03 AM:Investments in positive technologies that have major social and environmental benefits = HUGE BOONDOGGLE!

Witch Creek Resident wrote on Jul 11, 2008 9:21 AM:I live in the area, the power lines were never maintained to my knowledge, about 2 years ago or so, SDG&E came out and cleared circles in the brush around their beloved power lines... In the time since, the plants and stuff had grown all the way up and around them... Does this sound like upkeep to you? They will more than likely do the same thing with the Power link. The winds do reach over 80 mph here. If they do this Power Link thing, lets get them to go underground... They did it in the middle of the desert, why can they do it here?
To What: I know what you mean, I stayed at my house through the whole thing, lost a couple sheds, my new riding mower, and my well house... 2 weeks later the FD shows up... After My neighbors and I put the hotspots out...

prof wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:15 AM:Here are some more boondoggles - hybrid cars (really don't save gas), wind technology, nuclear is dangerous, oil is not the future, plants/trees matter, water shortages. Don't be fooled, live to excess and all will work out. The environment and these technologies can't help.

Floyd wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:39 AM:You can't use the rebates to install the solar panels since that money doesn't show up until months after all the bills have been paid. A solar system that costs $40,000 to eliminate a $30/month electricity bill takes 111 years to reach the breakeven point but the estimated lifetime of the system is only 30 years. It's not cost-effective, which is why installing the SunRise Powerlink to bring in electricity from new power plants is the better solution.

Victims wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:45 AM:Cox and SDG&E were responsible?

the widow of the lineman that got electrocuted should investigate both SDG&E and Cox culpability in the electrecution.

$$$$$$$$$$

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 11, 2008 11:33 AM:The post from "Floyd" (10:39am) is absolutely incredible in demonstrating the extent to which some people will go to expound on subjects they know absolutely nothing about.
He actually has the nerve to say that "You can't use the rebates to install the solar panels since that money doesn't show up until months after all the bills have been paid."
I have no idea how long it takes for the money to show up. I had bids from three companies for my solar system, and all of them eagerly computed and deducted the amounts of the rebates up front, and then handled all the paperwork to collect them. It was simply deducted from my costs up front. No hassle, no problem. If it is a problem for the contractors, the one that got the bid sure seemed thrilled to get that problem, and the two who didn't sure seemed disappointed.
Then, "Floyd" shows he is better at math than accuracy in facts. He computes: "A solar system that costs $40,000 to eliminate a $30/month electricity bill takes 111 years to reach the breakeven point." Well, the math might compute, but the underlying assumptions are so 1980's. Based on my own 2007 experience, a system costing less than $30,000 has completely eliminated electric bills running about $100 a month in the winter, and $400 - $500 running the AC in the summer.
Try running the numbers again, "Floyd," only this time use current values.

Dude wrote on Jul 11, 2008 12:06 PM:I have this strange feeling, in my wallet, it's feeling lighter.

Ratepayer wrote on Jul 11, 2008 1:30 PM:DDWiz at 8:47 and 11:33 a.m. documents saving money by completely eliminating his electric bill and adding value to his house, and notes this is feasible now.
I agree with Wiz, but also note another option, that some people find that the payoff can be even faster by installing only a partial system.
Our SDG&E rates are "tiered." The more electricity you use, such as during the summer AC season, the higher the rate for the portions in higher tiers.
Some people just install a partial system, which only eliminates the portion of rates in the higher, most expensive tiers. In the off months, when the AC isn't running, it may eliminate the bills altogether, but in the summer, you can run your AC and only pay the reduced net output at the lower rates.
So you pay for the portion of electricity that is cheap, and eliminate just the expensive part.
The partial system costs much less, but because it only eliminates the highest-priced electricity, it is targeted to pay for itself much faster.

I really hate to say it wrote on Jul 11, 2008 3:37 PM:That I agree with DDWIZ. From an ultra conservative and an engineer.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 11, 2008 4:09 PM:The post from "Dude" (12:06pm) describes the unbearable lightness of his wallet.
That is the sound of SDG&E sucking the dollars out of it.
And there was a new rate increase effective May 1, just in time for the summer AC season, well, at least for those of you who still pay electric bills -- BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA.
And after AB1920 passes and they have to pay for the excess electricity they're currently stealing for free from "consumer generators" who produce more than they use, then that lightening load will be because you are sending money to ME! Unless, of course, you join us, which I invite you to do.

To "Ratepayer" (1:30pm) and "I really hate to say it" (3:37pm), thank you for the partial agreements -- at least on this issue we're not so far apart :-)

TerribleHanky wrote on Jul 11, 2008 4:09 PM:And then there is that all over good feeling with solar panels knowing that you are self sufficient. I lost power when they were working on the lines just today. With solar, that would not have happened or I assume the batteries would have kicked in somehow.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 11, 2008 4:38 PM:The post from "TerribleHanky" (4:09pm) tries to make a point in favor of solar, and I support the good intentions, but in the interest of honest disclosure also need to set the record straight.
In most instances, unless you go completely off the grid, this is a common assumption (that I shared before going solar) that is, disappointingly, not correct. If you are connected to the grid, then at night or on very heavily cloudy/stormy days, then you get your power from SDG&E. During sunshine, you give all your excess power back to SDG&E, and at the end of an annual adjustment, if you used more than you produce, you pay the difference, and if you produce more than you used, you lose the difference (until AB1920 passes and requires utilities to pay for what they take).
To protect line workers from the utility against live wires while working on supposedly dead power lines, it is MANDATORY that the solar system be automatically shut down during a power outage if you are connected to the grid.
To make up for this, I do have a substantial separate battery backup system, which you can buy and install with or without solar, so when the power goes out my lights are still on.
If you go completely off the grid, you need either a separate auxilliary power source (such as wind) or a strong battery storage system, and a lot more solar panels to make up for nights and inclement weather, or both. In most urban areas it is more feasible to remain connected to the grid.

olie wrote on Jul 11, 2008 4:53 PM:Our SDG&E rates will go up to pay a couple lawyers very very big bucks...while their 'clients' who lost everything will get a tiny pitance..... if anything.